Rosalynde Welch takes on Mormon Stories

[_Kishkumen]

Here is my favorite comment in response to Welch's post:

I've never heard a Mormon Stories podcast and I've never met John Dehlin. I don't really have a dog in the fight, so to speak. I have, however, spent the last few years finishing a doctorate in philosophy at Cambridge, and from my view this seems like a poor excuse for a reasoned argument. As someone said below, it reads like an undergraduate's first venture into philosophy (not the student that you encourage; the one that you gently advise to consider another field).

The argument seems to pivot on the supposed contradiction between the concepts of self-expression and the social community; but the only evidence the author provides for this contradiction is a post-modern invalidation of self-expression. I fail to see how this supports the central claim, and I also fail to see, as with most amateur attempts at deconstruction, how the author plans to rescue any aspect of the moral or social world from her sweeping critique.

It makes a fun thought experiment but does nothing to support her argument (whatever that turns out to be).

[_Joe Geisner]

This is spot f*****g on. Welch and her fellow travelers at BCC and T&S drove me straight into the DAMU back in 2005. At the time I was simply a faithful Mormon looking for more stimulating conversation than could be found on Sunday morning in church.

You write the truth. These people are spineless at best. The drivel coming from these blogs is ... well drivel for the most part!

I miss the old Mormon Matters blog. There was some very intelligent discourse. We have people from ultra believing Mormons to people like John Hammer and Nick Literski and everyone in between.

[_Kishkumen]

Those who say this has nothing to do with the Maxwell Institute situation...

Well said Rosalynde! Thank you for this.

Remember who Bryce Haymond is?

[_Kishkumen]

Another excellent response to Welch's post (note especially his contradiction of her characterization of Laurel Thatcher Ulrich's reaction to the Mormon Stories conference experience, bolded below):

At first I thought you might be on to something here, but the more I think about it I don't think you have captured at all what is going on at MS or any other communities that have been built up around Mormon identity, but outside the confines of official institutions of the church.

The contradiction isn't that authentic self expression is in direct conflict with with a supportive social ecosystem. That is a really strange claim. If this were true than we would have to accept that testimony meetings or any other public form of self-expression within a community couldn't be authentic self-expression. MS (and other communities) as far as I can see aren't claiming that such expressions are inherently not authentic because they take place within the church while those within their community are. I think that gets it all wrong. Rather it seems the general thrust is there aren't very good scripts and narratives within the church for individuals experiencing doubt, a faith crisis or who ultimately go through some form of faith transition which leads to less literal belief which allow the person to maintain a desired connection to their Mormon identity. The most active script which do exist currently within the church (in many places, as I think you can argue that there is a large locally defined component here) often lead to real, negative consequences to individuals and families. Couples where one spouse goes through a major faith transition is probably the iconic example, here. What script to do we have within current Mormonism for that? How about for those who identify as both gay and Mormon? How about those who decide that they don't believe in the basic truth claims of Mormonism, but still identify with Mormonism or want to belong to the community? The common narratives and scripts in Mormonism have trouble dealing with these. If MS is going to have a real contribution it will be not in defining new scripts themselves but in providing a "supportive ecosystem" where individuals can have a productive dialogue across these social boundaries and maintain relationships.

Now I happen to know that there is a lot of discussion within the MS community about the negative tone that has drifted into the community over time. One of the struggles in being a community where people have sought support when they have found themselves in unsupportive local ward environments or for people who go through very difficult faith transitions is that anger is inherently part of the process. People come to these communities hurting and struggling and in pain. Pain causes people, even good people to act out. As people work through these issues hopefully the pain and anger subside. For many it does. As they find productive ways to solve their crises and problems they often move on from these communities or become "less active". They replace their online community with a local supportive one. Then new people, newly in pain arrive. This is exhausting and actually hurts not helps (as you posit) the long term community building efforts. So while I understand how an outsider such as yourself looking at many of the stories could take away that the community is represented by anger etc. it is really just selection bias. It is akin to an outsider watching testimony meeting and concluding that all prayers are answered, every trial is overcome and that everyone sitting in the pews has a blessed life. We know that isn't true. I agree with you that it is a work in progress and who knows how it is going to end.

Finally, just a couple of notes on tone here. Insipid moral grounding of the narratives (of people you watched on Mormon stories)? Really. Do you wonder why people who end up in MS might be looking outside to other communities for a little understanding? You might start there. And the statement by MS that it isn't seeking to become a church or to change the church etc. has nothing to do with any internal presumptuous but simply the very real fact that it is necessary within Mormonism to avoid potential discipline to state these things explicitly. Anyone involved with Sunstone or and the like should intuitively understand such proforma disclaimers.

Also FYI, I was at the Boston MS conference and I know Laurel and I am pretty sure she would disagree with your characterization of her talk being characterized as refusing "graciously draw out the obvious and dismaying implications for her audience". She was moved to tears by those "insipid narratives". I guarantee you I know more about what Laurel thinks about this than you do because I have talked explicitly to her about it on numerous occasions. That seemed a bit desperate. And while "health" is too anodyne a concept to stir your soul, for many people going through difficult transitions overcoming suicidal thoughts or keeping a healthy marriage relationship is sometimes about all the victory they are looking for.

I am grateful to MS for helping to keep my marriage intact (and I am not the one who went through the faith crisis). For all that I love Dialogue, Sunstone and those that have valiantly fought to keep more liberal and intellectual scripts, narratives and community support alive within Mormonism they are not suited for nor trying to provide support for individual and families whose well-being is challenged by shifts in identity and faith.

[_Kishkumen]

Another excellent response:

"It's not entirely clear what is meant by "authentic self-expression,"
and in any case I am one who doubts that anything like authentic
self-expression—or even anything like an "authentic self"—actually
exists. But conceding for the sake of argument that some kind of
personal communication can spring directly from the soul, UNMEDIATED BY ENVIRONMENT or exigency, surely a vibrant social community is the last place one would expect to find such authentic expression."

One of the primary objectives of Mormon Stories is to create "mediating environments" for the purpose of providing spaces that are more conducive than some to self-expression of authenticity. It isn't, then, that we don't acknowledge the existence of "mediating environments." Just the opposite, actually. Not only do we acknowledge them, but we purposefully strive to create "mediating environments" that support the objectives we espouse. The fact that we strive for environments that evoke the ideal of authentic self-expression does not, of course, in any way guarantee that any or all individuals will find their authentic selves and express such selves at one particular moment in time or ever at all. Ideals and objectives are only ideals and objectives. The success or failure of a project should, at least in my opinion, be measured by outcome.

Just as, like you intimate, "mediating environments" affect social behaviors, some social behaviors feel more authentic to individuals than others regardless as to whether or not any individual or social community is capable of actually attaining any officially stated objective or ideal. If you keep reading this post, you will find that we base the success of attainment of our set forth objectives and ideals not upon whether or not we have achieved perfection in self-expression or authenticity as you suggest in your post, but on whether or not our community members experience what they perceive to be "mediating environments" allowing for higher levels of authenticity than they experience elsewhere. Outcome.

For example:

At Mormon Stories conferences like the one at which Laurel Thatcher Ulrich spoke, we know we have succeeded in successfully molding a "mediating environment" conducive to the self-expression of authenticity we explicitly strive for when attendees report feeling as if they authentically shared during our final Story Sharing Meetings and audience members walk away feeling astounded by the authenticity they heard. Outcome.

I would recommend, if it's okay, that in addition to listening to Laurel Ulrich's phenomenal speech at our Boston conference, you fast forward and listen to the Story Sharing Meeting. It can be found after Joanna Brook's talk about one third of the way through the second track.

I would like to know if, after listening, you find the attendees' stories to be more or less "authentic" (it's cool by me if you to choose your own definition) than those you commonly come across in the many social environments in which you interact. My personal opinion is that our intentionally and explicitly created "mediating environments" do make space for people to safely and authentically express what they would not express in a different "mediating environments." If I am right, we have, at least on some levels, partially met our stated ideal objectives. If you disagree that you hear an uncommon level of human expression of self-authenticity in the Story Sharing Meeting, I would like to hear about it.

I would also like to know if you think what they say sounds "healthy." Again, whatever definition you choose for "health" will suit me as long as you're honest with both me and yourself about your conclusions.

[_TrashcanMan79]

FYI: Don’t Trust Rosalynde Welch’s Investigation of Mormon Stories - David King Landrith

[_Kishkumen]

Thanks, TrashcanMan79.

I'll quote what I think is the best part of Landrith's critique:

Whether such historical facts are “basic” is immaterial. The LDS church generally omits acknowledgement of these facts from its worship and teaching materials. As a direct consequence, few members are aware of them. In fact, few Mormons are even aware that the LDS church has excommunicated scholars who have published on these issues. Sadly, Welch focuses on how the individual treats the organization, while failing to entertain the possibility that the organization is accountable for its treatment of individuals, many of whom have spent their lives serving the LDS church in a volunteer capacity and contributing a tenth of their income to the LDS church. Welch’s propensity to blame the victims of non-disclosure for their feelings of betrayal is strange and cult-like.

Welch feigns sophistication by impugning Mormon Stories as “silly” in light of “numerous Mormon journals—including BYU Studies, Dialogue, Sunstone, Irreantum, and others.” One wonders what Mormon Stories contributors like Terryl Givens, Richard and Claudia Bushman, Greg Prince, Daniel Peterson, Jana Reiss, Joanna Brooks, and Nate Oman would make of Welch’s assessment that Mormon Stories is “silly.” Nevertheless, though Welch seems quite serious when she asserts the silliness of Mormon Stories, it is surely hyperbole. At worst, Mormon Stories is redundant. In reality, Mormon Stories is no more redundant (or silly) by virtue to the other projects than those projects are with respect to each other. Most importantly, Mormon Stories is not redundant to its participants, who have not generally participated in the other venues that Welch mentions. Interestingly, even Welch seems unclear about the value of her assessment, since she quickly admits that Mormon Stories “does not fill any actual intellectual void,” which it was never designed to, as I outline at the outset of this article.

Beneath Welch’s attempt to demean participants in Mormon Stories lies a mess of confused verbiage and some very poor reasoning. Welch’s critique of Mormons Stories begins with the following two statements:

Mormon Stories “defines itself on two axes: both as a supportive social ecosystem, and as a purveyor of what it calls ‘authentic self-expression.’”
“These two goals are, of course, in direct conflict with one another”

Welch pushes the reader to believe that her description is obvious by inserting the idiomatic adverb “of course.” Tellingly, Welch’s explanation of this supposedly obvious fact requires the longest paragraph in her essay to explain.

Nevertheless, Welch’s explanation fails. Values measured on separate axes are never in direct conflict with one another; that’s why they’re on separate axes. Welch is struggling to express a simple idea: authenticity and community are on two separate ends of a single spectrum. Unfortunately, Welch’s suggestion that an organization must have either authenticity or community falls prey to an elementary error of reasoning, namely, the either/or fallacy. Every organization maintains a tension between authenticity and community. The LDS church, as Welch’s report demonstrates, is heavily biased toward community and conformity. Mormon Stories seeks a balance with more authenticity than can be found in the larger Mormon devotional landscape.

Welch demonstrates a profound ignorance of the landscape of Mormon online communities. For example, she states, “The [Mormon Stories] website contains language assuring the reader that Mormon Stories is not and will not become a religion in itself.” Welch quips, “These assurances are at once grandiose and unnecessary, since the community evidently lacks the moral gravity necessary to anchor a religion.” Were Welch more aware of the breadth and scope of Mormon groups on the internet, she might know that there have been efforts to define a tradition-based mode of liberal Mormon practice and belief that is not attached to a church hierarchy. The statement Welch cites on the Mormon Stories web site merely clarifies that this is not the intention of Mormon Stories. In keeping with the spirit of Welch’s other accusations, Welch’s ignorance fuels her imagination, leading to a vindictive criticism of Mormon Stories based on goals that it does not purport to have.

[_Kishkumen]

In any case, the enthusiastically supportive Bryce Haymond quoted above is involved with the effort to "Restore FARMS."

See: http://restorefarms.com/, https://www.Facebook.com/RestoreFARMS, http://www.templestudy.com/2012/06/29/restore-farms-support-organization/.

[_Kishkumen]

Geoff B. of the Millennial Star weighs in to support Rosalynde Welch:

Unlike many of the people panning Rosalynde’s article in the comments, I actually have listened to many Mormon Stores podcasts. Some of them are really quite good — others clearly celebrate and openly encourage apostasy while subtly moving the listener to adopt an alternate religion around John Dehlin’s questioning of the Church. As others have noted, John Dehlin’s project could not exist without the Church (so he can continue to criticize it), but the Church will continue to exist without John Dehlin. Other followers of Dehlin — and he appears to have at least hundreds — may want to consider the cautionary tales in the Book of Mormon regarding priestcraft. Rosalynde concludes the following:

Priestcraft? Oh brother. It seems to me that the FARMS crowd should be more concerned about their own near-brushes with priestcraft.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Priestcraft? Oh brother. It seems to me that the FARMS crowd should be more concerned about their own near-brushes with priestcraft.

For people who are supposedly "open-minded" about the church, they sure circled the wagons quickly.